What would happen if social security was abolished?

[llamatron 10]

How can you argue with someone that continually contradicts themself and ignores the self evident?

If society stops people from doing something (spending their giro on cigarettes), then choice has been restricted.

 

How can you actually disagree with that sentence and let claim to be arguing logically.

 

You're using a logical extension that life limits choices, and trying to somehow make that remove the consequences of society further limiting an already limited choice. Bizarre.

 

so what?

 

they aren't earning their own money, we should help them survive until they get another job but we should not fund useless luxuries like cigarettes and plasma tvs

[LeBoing 10]

I work full time and after I pay all my bills etc I have very little left to spend as I choose thanks to high taxes to pay for those who DON'T work's freedom of choice. While a lot of ideas seem harsh and quite 'police state' I would like something to be done about the fact that the people I know that are on benefits can afford better clothes, have better stuff, can afford to run cars and can fund a better social life than I can.

 

I don't think the credit card is a bad idea, it could be linked to biometrics to protect against a black market. However I'm not sure I would like it to be implemented - it is a big invasion of privacy and might breach Article 8. Maybe the cards could be introduced after an initial 8 weeks on normal benefits (during which time most people who want to work would have started applying for jobs and might even have one). Still on the fence on this one.

[danot 10]

How can you argue with someone that continually contradicts themself and ignores the self evident?

If society stops people from doing something (spending their giro on cigarettes), then choice has been restricted.

 

How can you actually disagree with that sentence and let claim to be arguing logically.

 

You're using a logical extension that life limits choices, and trying to somehow make that remove the consequences of society further limiting an already limited choice. Bizarre.

 

 

You're right, I am using a logical extention, because unlike you, i'm looking at the broader picture. Choices are, and always have been restricted to some extent.

[Cyclone 10]

And if you restrict them further then you have reduced someones freedom of choice.

 

It's not complicated, the fact that choices are always restricted doesn't alter that this change would restrict them further.

[Cyclone 10]

so what?

 

they aren't earning their own money, we should help them survive until they get another job but we should not fund useless luxuries like cigarettes and plasma tvs

 

I haven't made any argument about the 'what' of it. Just that it is a restriction, I'm only arguing this point because someone denied earlier that it was a restriction at all.

 

The only problem I can see with the idea is the black market that it creates. Social security is supposed to stop people starving whilst out of work, not provide them with cigarettes and booze, so I have no real problem with the basic concept.

[danot 10]

You would be, if you're advocating food coupons.

As Cyclone has pointed out, your position is completely illogical.

 

If you remove a persons freedom of choice through deciding for them what they can and cannot spend their money on, you are, by definition limiting their choices.

 

That 'replacing money with vouchers would take their freedom of choice away from them, because they would be limited to where they could shop, and which items they could buy' isn't my opinion.

It's a self evident fact.

 

I've never advocated food coupons.. what I have done is disagree with your theory that giving them to someone limits their freedom of choice. Their choices have'nt been limited, they still have the same freedom of choices as they've always had at their disposal, which can be used at their discretion, should they choose to do so.

 

You're perception of limited freedom of choice, in the context that you're using it, is nothing more than the harsh realities of life... its not just about benefits.

 

If someones salary dictates that they can't even consider buying certain items from certain places. Using your theory, it would be their job that is limitng their freedom of choice??.. when in actual fact.. it is their choice of job that is limiting their options. Thats life!!

[Cyclone 10]

Giving them to someone instead of cash obviously limits their choice. That is the entire point of them. To limit their choice in what they buy with the benefit they have received. Please stop being so obtuse. Everyone can see that it limits choice and is the entire point of the suggestion.

[danot 10]

Giving them to someone instead of cash obviously limits their choice. That is the entire point of them. To limit their choice in what they buy with the benefit they have received. Please stop being so obtuse. Everyone can see that it limits choice and is the entire point of the suggestion.

 

 

 

Cash..!, coupons..!, whats the difference??. most of us are restricted by the same limitations as i've explained.

[Urien 10]

England is now living through difficult times, very probably the most difficult times for almost a century. We shall not feel the effects of this until after the next election, but at some stage soon times must get harder.

 

So, what would happen if the newly elected party in May (we think) decided to pay off all the debts that it and the other merchant bankers have created by SIMPLY BANNING social security?....The Giro no longer comes?

 

Would we see revolution, would it improve England in the long term?

 

Would people learn just how much they had?

 

No political party would dare to ban social security, it would cause so much civil unrest that couldn't be contained. There would be mass rioting in the Muslim ghettos and across the council estates. Shops would be looted and property torched.

 

There must come a time though when there are more people on benefits than the tax-payer can afford to keep. How our useless politicians tackle that is any-one's guess.

[Cyclone 10]

Cash..!, coupons..!, whats the difference??. most of us are restricted by the same limitations as i've explained.

 

Scenario A - cash.

Person goes to corner shop and buys 1 litre of vodka and 20 cigarettes.

 

Scenario B - coupons

Person goes to corner shop. CANNOT buy what they would with cash. They have to get some groceries or nothing.

 

In scenario B the person clearly has a restricted choice compared to scenario A.

 

That's the difference, that's the limited choice. That's the entire point of food coupons.

[Cyclone 10]

Surely the NHS comes under the blanket of social security? We'd all have to get health insurance as the NHS would be closed down.

And care homes are most definitely in that category, we'd all have to start paying for our own care and/or that of our parents.

 

Tax might go down, but expenditure would go up, and the burden would be disproportionate to income (ie the well off would cope better).

[llamatron 10]

surely for the system now to be viable, expenditure for the well off ie those that pay taxes would go down because they wouldn't be paying for others

 

I actually believe it would go up, which means what we have now is a bit mental and worrying, similar to living off your credit card